As
a white-male American now 70 years old, I sometimes feel that
I have no community that I can call my own. I have no people. I
have no
country, at least
not one whose leadership represents me. This is strange because
my
type of person is supposed to comprise America’s majority
population. The United States of America ought to be my homeland.
In a real sense,
it is not.

Admittedly,
my feelings of not being represented are based on subjective perceptions
rather than upon evidence that would be considered
objective. Race has a lot
to do with this. Ever since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s,
I have been increasingly defined as a white person. I am submerged in the amorphous
white melting pot of America rather than being a member of a European ethnic
group. Whites have become a single and rather faceless people.

Why
do I feel alienated in my own land? Without being able to cite chapter
and
verse, I perceive a subtle bias against whites. The government
clerk (often
female)
who might have given me a break opts for toughness in my case. There is little
sympathy for someone like me. My point of view is largely dismissed. I sense
that a minority person in the same situation would receive better treatment.
Maybe the idea is that, since I have been a member of a privileged class
for much of my life, it’s time to even the score.

Objectively,
whites can complain of affirmative-action policies with respect
to employment and college admissions, minority set-asides in public
contracting,
and other one-sided policies that have been imposed in the name of “equal
treatment”. Discrimination against racial minorities is illegal;
not so, against members of the white population. “Racism” is
considered exclusively a fault of whites, no matter how hateful anti-white
attitudes
may be. One seldom
hears anyone with standing in the community defend white people against
the many and various charges made against them as a group. The mainstream
media
are monolithic
on this point. Even the statement that America is a (white) “racist
nation” goes
unchallenged.

The
spoken and whispered reaction

Why
are white people so passive? Why do they routinely submit to blatant
prejudice against their own kind? It may be because the charge
of “racism” carries
such a stigma, including threats to one’s livelihood, that few
whites will risk standing up for themselves as being white. They may
secretly
resent what
is happening but will remain silent, knowing that the full weight of
respectable opinion in the mass media, education, religion, and government
may be brought
to bear against them if they go public with their views. Their solitary
acts of defiance would receive no support. What, then, is the use?

That
is not to say that there are not conversations below the surface that
support white racial identity. Whites huddled around the coffee
machine
at work may say
things to each other that they dare not express in public. There are
individuals such David Duke who openly express pro-white views. There
are remnants
of the southern Ku Klux Klan. Such persons and groups have become thoroughly
marginalized
and vilified as purveyors of racial hate. If you want a list of the
reviled groups, contact the Southern Poverty Law Center. The commercial
media
are full of denunciations
leveled at them.

The
strange thing is that it is whites more than blacks who lead the “anti-racist” attack.
They are whites who do not identify with white people as a group
but with their own subset.
They do not consider themselves part of the majority population.
Whether they hate themselves as white or are legitimately offended
by what other white people do cannot be determined in every case.
Each
thinks he or she is special - a cut above the average person. So
the idea
of racial or any kind of identity is rather complicated.

Speaking
for myself, I think that it is legitimate to oppose the anti-white
attitudes floating around in our society;
and it is no more hateful
to express such opposition
than to criticize any other injustice or untruth that exists in the
community. How to do this effectively is another question. Obviously,
one would
want others to confirm and support one’s opinions before jumping
into the lion’s
den of the public arena. So it is a matter of building pro-white
communities that can do battle against the hostile forces of political
correctness
and provide mutual support for the volunteer combatants.

Slowly
such communities are starting to form. The publication “American
Renaissance” contains intelligent, temperate articles that
make a pro-white racial argument. American Third Position is a
pro-white political party starting to be
active. Yet, while I applaud their courage and integrity, I am
not entirely comfortable with the message. It seems that, for whites
to be willing to stick their necks
out on racial questions, they must go into a warrior mode.

Pro-white
but moderate

I
must confess that, while being pro-white, I am a moderate with
respect to race relations. I have not yet found an organization
that matches
my own point
of
view. I have found that groups willing to speak on behalf of
white people have developed an attitude of hostility toward minority
groups that verges
on “racism”.
These groups may renounce violence. They may advance their arguments
in intelligent, reasoned, and civil ways. They may be a white
counterpart to organizations such
as the NAACP that agitates on behalf of their particular people.
Yet, advancement for white people is seen as a zero-sum game
where negativity must be directed
toward non-whites.

Maybe
this attitude reflects human nature. We think of political struggle
in terms of having an opponent
to beat rather than,
from a higher spiritual
perspective,
a struggle within oneself to develop a better personal identity.
As someone who has developed close relationships with persons
of other
races, I
am not interested
in bringing racial conflict into my personal affairs and achieving “victory” on
that level. Rather, I am interested in combatting forces within
the larger society that express hostility against white people
and so achieving an increased measure
of dignity and self-respect for me and others of my race. National
salvation depends on finding the right solution.

I
said I detected “racism” in
certain pro-white groups for which I admittedly have sympathy.
To be a “white racist” does not mean
that the person wants to lynch black people or re-enslave
them. It does not imply that the person is consumed by hate.
It simply
denotes a group selfishness that
is found in all groups of people. Still, I would argue that
this is a condition which a person should aim to overcome.

White
racism in its classic sense, denoting racial “prejudice” against
blacks, ascribes negative group characteristics to black
people: Black people are considered to be less intelligent
than whites. They are personally undisciplined.
They show a greater propensity to commit crimes. They typically
slur their speech. It is further alleged that blacks are
genetically predisposed to have these personal
traits. This line of argument could be carried to the point
of considering blacks to be sub-human so that their basic
human rights might be denied, as in the days
of slavery.

To
express any of these group characterizations today, even if confirmed
by studies and reports,
marks
one as
a “racist” and invites a harsh
reaction. What type of policy ought the community to
adopt if, for instance, scholarly studies show that blacks
have
lower IQs than whites or exhibit consistently
higher rates of crime? Unless one is prepared to suggest
that blacks be shipped to Africa or become victims of
racial genocide, there is no rational solution
to the problem from a white point of view. We whites
must simply get used to living in a community with blacks.

Furthermore,
if society attempts to impose laws or regulations that assume black
inferiority, they would be unjust to
individuals who
do not exhibit
those negative
characteristics. I would accept the argument advanced
by Civil Rights advocates fifty years ago that it is
wrong
to show “prejudice” against individual
blacks because one has formed a negative opinion of
blacks as a group. One should try to be fair. Some
black persons
may not conform to the group stereotype. They
deserve individual treatment.

The
dominant attitude now is, however, to condemn anyone as a racist
who
makes negative comments about black
people as
a group,
especially
implying
a genetic
cause for black misbehavior. This throws the spotlight
back on the accuser: he becomes a “mad dog”,
consumed by irrational hate. Yet, the anti-black
prejudice is not entirely irrational. Was it not
Jesse
Jackson
who once said, that when he heard footsteps following
him at night, he was relieved to find it was a white
person. Call it “ghetto” behavior if
you will, blacks need to own up to their own misconduct
when it occurs rather than point
a “racist” finger at the critic.

A
way to put white people down

It
cannot go unnoticed that the same types of people who routinely
oppose anti-black prejudice are now
expressing an even more
virulent prejudice
against whites.
They are by no means inhibited from forming opinions
of
white people as a group and insisting that individual
whites conform
to that
stereotype even
if the
evidence points in another direction.

An
example would be the concept of “white privilege”, a
hot topic in academia today. White people are thought to
be inherently privileged because whites comprise the majority of
people in the United States. If one should point
to a white hobo or another white person who appears
to be living a hard life, the proponent of white privilege would
brush it off with the assertion that whites
are “institutionally” privileged
because we are living in a white society. Presumably,
this
society is biased in favor of individual whites.

The
assertion of group characteristics, advanced
even in the face of contradictory evidence,
shows the intellectual
depravity
of
those in
the vanguard of
anti-white opinion who are, regrettably, concentrated
in
some of our more respected
academic institutions. This is a regime that
perpetuates itself by fear and intimidation.
White Americans, for their own sake and the
sake of our country, must express opposition to such
views. The monopoly
of racial
expression in our major
opinion-setting institutions must be broken.

I
link the degradation of white people to the degradation of America,
so evident today. Since
whites are
America’s majority population, to denigrate
them essentially denigrates the county. It
allows an elite to subjugate everyone else
following the pattern: First you vilify,
then ruin. In this case, if the idea takes
hold
that white people are “racists” -
i.e., evil - then they deserve punishment.
The majority white population is then no
longer the democratic
master of the American political house but
a dispirited population that deserves to
have its unmerited privilege taken away by
bankers,
government officials,
academics and media pundits, and security
personnel. The fault lies with us rather
than them.

Therefore,
white people need to regroup and
seek a different strategy. One approach
might be to
imitate what blacks
did with the Civil
Rights movement.
Claim white
disadvantage and seek to overcome it. The
problem is
that white people are America’s
majority population. Our society’s
leaders are still largely white. It would
then make little sense to agitate to put
more whites in leadership positions.

A
better goal would be to try to have these
leaders identify more with white people.
Maybe greater
racial solidarity
would translate
into
closer kinship
between the society’s elite class
and the mass of people. People are less
likely to abuse their sons and daughters
or whomever they consider to be in some
sense
like them. However, anti-discrimination
laws prohibit expression of such preferences.
There needs to be an ideological framework
for developing a political response for
making the United States a more white-friendly
nation.

Toward
a definition of who I am

A
good first step toward this end would be to define membership in
the white
people’s group. European ancestry
alone will not suffice. I would propose
three criteria for inclusion in this
group: (1) I am an American. (2) I
am a person of European ancestry who
considers
himself primarily white rather than
a member of an ethnic subgroup. (3)
I belong to America’s majority
population and identify myself as such.

Such
a definition would exclude certain
persons who are biologically white:
(1) Jews, because
they think
of themselves
primarily
as a group apart from
the majority
population, (2) Hispanic whites who
consider themselves mainly Hispanic,
(3) women,
gays & lesbians who, though white,
consider themselves as persons apart
from the majority population, being
a sub-group oppressed by the majority
population.

Clearly,
how people regard themselves
affects membership in the population
that I call
white. If Jews, Hispanics,
women,
and
gays and lesbians
identify with
the majority white population, then
they are white. If they are alienated
from
this population
or hold
themselves
as
a people
apart from it,
they then belong
to whatever sub-group they have chosen
rather than the white race as I define
it.

With this definition in place, one
sees that white people’s struggle to
advance themselves politically, economically,
culturally, and spiritually is necessarily
different than it has been for other people.
Majority status is the
reason. The underdog posture is unsuitable
for their challenge. White people must advance
as a people regardless of what others do.
In other words, whites
must stand on their own two feet and not
pretend that their success depends on someone
else’s good will or that someone else
is holding them back. No, the majority population
in a democratic society ought to prevail;
and it it does
not, there is a problem with the system of
governance. It is not racial minorities but
the political leadership that whites would
then need to examine.

Some
principles of healthy group identity

I
propose that white people, organized as
a group seeking racial advancement, deliberately
pursue
a positive
self-identity following
these principles:

1. Each group has the right to a healthy, positive identity regardless
of past history.

2. Each group has the right to define its own identity rather than accepting
someone
else’s definition.

3. A
healthy group self-definition is one that does not require some
other group
to
stand in a
negative relationship to itself.

Each
one of us has multiple identities. I am: (1) a white person, (2)
an
American, and (3)
a human
being
or citizen
of the world.

As
a white person, I participate in defining white identity. I neither
attempt to
define black people’s identity
nor allow black people to define
my racial identity. However,
since both black and white people
are
American, it is appropriate
for both to contribute to the
definition of an American identity.
Similarly,
being fellow humans, black and
white Americans as well as citizens
of other countries all have legitimate
input into the question of what
it means to be human.

Generally
speaking, it would be well
to identify more with
the
broader
group of
humanity than
with the narrower
national
or
racial group.
I am human first,
American second, and a white
American third. If I identify
more with
my race than with
humanity or
my nation,
I might be called
a “racist”. If
I identify more with my nation
than with humanity, I might
be called a “nationalist”.
The earth would be more peaceful
if people, identifying with
humanity, considered themselves
primarily
citizens of the world.

That
does not mean, however, that
race should be minimized
as a component
of one’s personal identity,
especially when that part
of identity is under attack.
White
people need to defend themselves
against malicious criticism.

Moral dualism

Malice
comes about, in part, through
invidious comparisons with
others: I am better than
you. I am bigger and smarter
than
you, says the older to
the younger child.
I am intellectually superior
to you, says the college-educated
person to the high-school
graduate. I am morally
your superior,
says the religious person
to someone outside the
fold. God
is on my side.

White
identity should be something else.
Whites should
revel in
what they themselves
have done,
not in having
beaten or
surpassed other
people. Their
own positive
identity should not depend
on the negative identity
of someone
else.
In today’s
environment, positive identity
is often defined in terms
of superior victimhood.
If you have abused me,
then
I am superior to you. This,
too, is something that
needs to be relegated to
history’s dustbin.
I should not nurse a grievance
against you to make myself
look good.

This
means that some of the cherished images
of
our religious
culture
need to go: Moses
confronting Pharaoh,
David
slaying Goliath. These
are contentious
self-images
unflattering to others.
God is on everyone’s
side, not just yours.
Since moral dualism is
imbedded
in western religion,
perhaps it’s time
to consider religions
and philosophies
of the east which assert
the oneness of the Universe.
From a higher perspective,
good versus evil does
not matter so much. All
happens
for a reason.

White
people have been guilty of moral
dualism
as in historical
drama where
cowboys invade
the west
and
Indians bite the
dust. “The only
good Indian is a dead
Indian”. We whites
who watched the movies
cheered as another
people was cleared
from the
land by rifle-toting
cavalry. The dualistic
view was also inherent
in race-based slavery.
Today, however, all
types of people rightly
receive
recognition
as human beings so
that white people’s “winning” self-image
must change.

Let
us therefore be leaders
in advancing
our own
identity without
injuring
others. Let us,
for instance,
celebrate
the heroes
of our race who
distinguished themselves
through creativity.
Being originally
from Detroit,
I would pick
such men as Thomas
Edison, Henry
Ford, Charles
Lindbergh,
Charles
F. Kettering,
William S. Knudsen,
George Romney and
others who built and sustained
the U.S.
automobile
industry and other
modern industries
as my racial
and national heroes.
We all have benefitted
from
their
creative
imagination and
skill.

I
know it sounds wimpish to envision
a world
without enemies.
But
do real men
need to
show courage by
fighting other
men? Is the
willingness to
kill built
into the genes
of red-blooded Americans?
I would
argue that there
are opportunities
to show
courage without
resorting to this.

If
white people are so brave,
why do they not
stand up for themselves
and their
race when
the agents
of political
correctness remorselessly attack
them? Is it
so hurtful to
be called
a “racist” that
one dares not
act in self-defense?
What is wrong
with
white people
that they seem
to lack
any sense of
racial dignity?
One can
be both courageous
and a racial
moderate who
declines to attack
other
people as a means
of advancing
oneself.

Let's
stand on our own two feet

My
idea of a positive white
identity
would be to concentrate
on one’s
own activities
and ignore what
others are doing
in comparison.
Stand up on your
own
two feet to assert
who you are,
not comparing
yourself
to anyone else
or claiming any
kind of victimhood.
It is not productive
to develop a
list of the bad
things
which members
of the black
race
have done. From
an identity standpoint,
that
is the black
people’s
problem. As a
white person,
just be
yourself. Find
within yourself
a basis for pride
in yourself and
work on making
this a larger
part of your
personality.

That
does not mean,
however,
that a
positive identity
excludes all
negativity
or fighting
for oneself.
Certainly it
is legitimate
to
fight the many
attacks on
white people. It is
legitimate
to fight against
the
idea that displacement
of the white
population
in America
by other peoples
is good
for
the country
as a whole. It is
legitimate
to
fight the
regime of political
correctness
that renders
one-sided judgments
to
the
detriment of
our race.
It is legitimate
to celebrate
white achievement
and criticize
persons who
would dismiss
this.
It is even
legitimate
to claim that our
scheme
of self-worth,
as not
depending on
another person’s
loss, is superior
to the ethic
of the Civil
Rights movement
as it has recently
become. It
is legitimate
to
oppose one
set of ideas
with
another.

A
scheme of identity for everyone

We
are presenting
here a scheme
of identity
that anyone
can
use. There
is no reason
why whites
and blacks
cannot both
prosper in
their
separate
racial groups.
As Americans
living in
the same land,
there is
no reason that
they cannot
prosper together.
However,
this is not happening
now.
Forced
integration
violates
the boundaries
of
a healthy
racial identity.
Enforcement
of
one-sided
anti-discrimination laws violates
our
sense of
justice.
Political correctness
eviscerates
freedom of
speech. In
a free society,
people
must
be free
to
find their
own
way. A self-chosen
scheme
of positive
identity
is a
good starting
point for
everyone. In America,
we can become
whoever
we want
to be so
long as this does
not impinge
upon the
rights of others.

We
whites are therefore
the
master
of our own identity
if
we want
to be.
As Americans,
we
proclaim
our
identity
independence.
Let
no one
else try
to define
us or shame
us into
becoming someone else.
If such
a self-empowering
ideology
can be
developed, then
we
can hold
our head
high as
white people, look
others
in the face,
and unflinchingly
tell them
who we
are. And if we
are
dissatisfied
with ourselves
as we presently
are,
we can
work at
becoming
someone
better. This power
is already
in our
hands.
It remains
to find
like-minded
persons
with whom
to
build a
community of proud
and strong
white
people
to take
our country back
from those
who,
misusing
history,
would disparage
our very
nature
and being.